Xenwolf

When in the MonoBook skin, the Search bar is down, so it requires scrolling. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I suggest not to use a user-defined skin. After Wikipedia switched to Vector, MonoBook seems to be no longer maintained by the MediaWiki team. Maybe you can still use MonoBook and change the search bar position via user-defined CSS and/or user-defined JavaScript, but I'm currently not able to help you with this issue. --Xenwolf (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

That's in Special:Preferences by the way. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

A nice advantage of MediaWiki is that broken links are immediately visible, which is helpful in pages like EDO#100...199. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. I even more like the MediaWiki tables, look here for a little table demo :) --Xenwolf (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Why is there a site named dev.xen.wiki that copies the xenharmonic articles and uses Timeless as the default skin? What's the point of that site? PiotrGrochowski (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a test page as it seems, there was a poll on Facebook which skin to prefer, it's still open, but a majority for Default (=Vector) is on the horizon. --Xenwolf (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Why did you ban me?!

Allowing any list model is the exact opposite of a personal opinion! You are so ironic! PiotrGrochowski (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Nobody disallows your opinion. But it's extremely disturbing that you tell people working on this wikis for years that they are childish if they use the simplest thing possible to write lists. Maybe it's a misconception to think that MediaWiki is about coding, it's about writing and communication. Did you read the help pages in Wikipedia or MediaWiki? What do you think about their expertise? They start with simple lists, later they explain HTML-like features, but they try to keep the wiki text as readable as possible and usable in diffs. Most (if not all lists we used in this wiki were simple enough for basic lists). Show me the actual problem that can be solved via template:list that cannot be solved via * and #. I mean: find an existing one, not construct one. I see a problem in very long lines containing a lot of </li><li> markup: they are not easy to change and they have a lower signal-to-noise ratio. And this can be solved by basic lists.
And as to answer your initial question: You try to invent Conventions for the wiki with a lot of effort and when I tried to correct you about this, you show how fast you can revert my justified changes and tell me that I'm vandalizing the wiki? I have not enough time to play this I'm better than you game. I have the feeling that you don't read carefully what other people write.
Best regards --Xenwolf (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It's true that you are worse than me. You are the one trying to push a personal opinion. All list models are equally acceptable and a specific one should not be taught in en:Help:Wiki help, no matter what advantages it might have. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I suggest to set up an own page "Help:Links" or "Help:Link" to contain the options <ul><li></li></ul> and <ol><li></li></ol> as well as your list template(s), provided that they are introduced with realistic use cases not as "just another opinion". Pages with style A ("my pages") and pages with style B ("your pages") without good reason will cause endless future wars, won't it? As for your claim that preferring * and # would show a "personal opinion": you remember your "unofficial poll"? I hope this helps you understand why a help page should start to teach the simplest way first. And when you claim "All list models are equally acceptable", this is wrong. A list template will have limits, and <br/> doesn't build a valid list, right? The HTML list tags are acceptable if they are well structured even in the source code since basically everyone should be able to edit the wiki not only those who are coding in HTML. Best regards --Xenwolf (talk) 15:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Realistic use cases don't matter. Every single list model is subjectively best, so it's very wrong to include only one in en:Help:Wiki help. And all list models really are equally acceptable; it's racist to say that a plaintext or defined list model results in an invalid list. And the convention that an edit consisting only of a list model change should not be done is supposed to prevent the edit war bug. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe en:Help:Wiki help#Lists should soft redirect to en:List model, like dev:Help:Wiki help#Lists does? Whatever the final solution may be, it definitely must show all list models as possibilities that users may use, with no subjective recommendation or anything. The objective advantages and disadvantages are too specific to be shown in the xen.wiki school, and they can always be found out by users later on, so it's best to state all list models neutrally. Can't believe you are complaining while doing worse in en:Help:Wiki help. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

11-limit Intervals

Hello there, I see that the intervals 55/32 and 64/55 are not present in the chart on the Gallery of Just Intervals page, and I have no idea how to add them as I don't know how to add cells to the chart. As I told Mike Battaglia in a recent email, I've found both 55/32 and 64/55 extremely useful in 11-limit music as they help harmonically bridge the 16/11 fifth. They are made even more useful by the fact that they differ from septimal intervals such as 12/7 and 7/6 by only a Keenanisma. Accordingly, I use them in a 44:55:64 overtonal triads built on the octave-reduced eleventh harmonic of the tonic as a predominant chord, and this is one of the two best 11-limit chords to use for such a purpose as it is clearly distinct from a diminished chord. While this chord is strange-sounding, it can help to evoke a sense of both the strange and wonderful, particularly if followed up by a traditional dominant seventh built on the third harmonic of the tonic. Possible set-ups I've found so far include a 4:5:6 major triad built on the octave-reduced third harmonic, a 10:12:15 minor triad built on the octave-reduced fifth harmonic, a 27:32:40 minor third built on the octave-reduced twenty-seventh harmonic, and of course, the tonic triad itself. --Aura (talk) 12:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me for the second message, and sorry if your user talk page isn't the right place for having this discussion, but I just found 64/55 on the list on the Gallery of Just Intervals page. However, 55/32 is still missing though, and I still don't know how to add it. --Aura (talk) 12:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried to add some of the information (to 55/32, 64/55, Gallery of just intervals).

BTW: Welcome on board, Aura 🙂

--Xenwolf (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I took the time to complete the first sentence of information on 55/32, and I added information to 64/55 about the triad formed with a 5/4 major third and a 64/55 keenanismic subminor third. I hope you can test this triad out for yourself. --Aura (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Links on my User Page

Hey, I just created an EDO impressions page- with the link at the bottom of my user page. However, the links on my user page need work in general, and I'm not sure how to go about fixing them, let alone getting my work seen on the Table of EDO impressions... Could you spare a moment and help me out? Thanks! --Aura (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I tried my best. The links are relatively easy to understand. First remember square brackets (double for internal, single for external links). Internal links are automatically built from page titles (the case of the very first character is ignored). External links always start with http(s), the URL part stops at the first space, what follows (before the closing bracket) is taken as display text. Read the whole story under Help:Links. Have a nice day 🙂 --Xenwolf (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! Hopefully all I have to do now is study what you did this... --Aura (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Diatonic Functions of Xenharmonic Intervals

Okay, so one thing I'm interested in is covering the diatonic functions of notes at various intervals' distance away from the tonic- you know, for microtonal composers who still want to work with tonality- I honestly think pages like 3/2 and 4/3 could benefit from having information on things like this. On another note, do we have information on the thirty-five 12edo proper modes? Pages documenting these modes would serve to gather variations and alternative tunings for these scales and modes into one place. For the record, I know that in my own microtonal composing, I tend not to go very far from my 12edo roots for reasons detaild in A recovering microtonalist's critical reaction to Why Microtonality, yet, I also can't help but agree with Mike S in his comments in Microtonalists critical reaction to a recovering microtonalists critical reaction to Why Microtonaltiy? on 7-limit and 11-limit being important- in fact, I would add the 13-limit to his list. --Aura (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

First, I guess that I'm not the right person to ask about diatonic functions of notes. Second, as far as I know there are no pages about the 35 12edo modes, but it could as well be that I only missed it/them. Third, I didn't compose anything yet. Currently I mostly help others to put information into the wiki ... I really like listening xen music of any kind, I also like "meditating" on intervals, that's why I uploaded several sound examples, especially those in prime limits above 5. But I also know that timbre is very important. BTW: today I discovered that 11/7 has a very convincing sound. --Xenwolf (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, you are one of the people who runs this wiki- at least to my knowledge- so you're one of the first people I can think of to ask about even the possibility of adding information to the wiki about the diatonic functions of notes at various intervals away from the tonic- just as a guide to help microtonal composers. Truth be told, I think Mike Battaglia could also be of help in deciding and working on the matter as he's got experience with jazz, but still, it's just as well that I approached you about this because I don't want to put stuff on this wiki if it doesn't belong here. As to whether or not there are pages on the 35 modes of 12edo that are "proper" in the sense mentioned on the Periodic scale page, I did find a page about what a Mode is. The reason I brought all this up in the first place is because I've found that in tunings closer to JI, the conventional Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian and Aeolian scales are not simply modes of the same diatonic scale, but rather, differing diatonic scales in their own right on account of using different tunings of their notes relative to one another for the purposes of establishing tonality. Locrian however proves to be an exception to this as according to my calculations, it is still a mode of the Lydian scale if you don't use 77/64 as the minor third above the tonic- I know I myself prefer to use 77/64 as the minor third above the tonic for Locrian as well as for minor scales in general so there's that. --Aura (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If you wish to add information - including new pages - to the wiki, you are welcome. I'm very interested in learning about your perspective on modes. And should it still happen that you add duplicate information, others will point it out to us.--Xenwolf (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so I've added the page on my diatonic scales, however, it needs a table of contents due to its size... --Aura (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Unnoticeable Comma

Okay, so I've recently found an unnoticeable comma- 117440512/117406179- that is only slightly more than half a cent in size. It is the difference between five 33/32 quartertones and a 7/6 subminor third, as well as the difference between six 33/32 quartertones and a 77/64 minor third... I've only seen it mentioned once on this wiki aside from on talk pages- specifically on the page for 3125edo- and I've also been told that it doesn't have a name... Since this unnoticeable comma involves 11-limit quartertones, can we call it the "Quartisma"? If so, then when this comma is tempered out, then can we can call the resulting temperaments "Quartismatic"? --Aura (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to ask about the name for the temperaments that temper out this comma because as I mentioned to Inthar on Sam's talk page, the comma's proposed name "Quartisma" comes from "Quarter" and "Schisma" on account of the comma both involving stacks of quartertones and being extremely small itself, and, the name for temperaments that temper out the Schisma is "Schismatic". --Aura (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Never mind about the name for the temperaments now... I think we've settled on the name "Quartismic" for the temperament name. However, now I'm curious... I know that 159edo is the first EDO divisible by 53 to temper out the "Quartisma", however, I also see that 24edo tempers out this interval as well... So that leaves me with questions as to which EDOs temper out the "Quartisma" and which ones don't... --Aura (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Since you're tempering out a comma in a rank-4 JI subgroup (2.3.7.11), you'll have to find 3 linearly independent (non-contorted) edos (not necessarily using their patent vals) that temper out the comma. None of the other relatively simple edos I can think of (17edo, 26edo, 34edo) do it, though. IlL (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Apparently 46edo does! So the edos that are quartismic are all edos of the form 24A + 46B + 159C, where A, B, C are integers. IlL (talk) 03:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)